[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWWUuzF7HaQAS2rf69KcqBrB9epvQPPgKEoK4MNbdVmEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:31:23 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] fdmap(2)
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Aliaksandr Patseyenak <Aliaksandr_Patseyenak1@...m.com>
>
> Implement system call for bulk retrieveing of opened descriptors
> in binary form.
>
> Some daemons could use it to reliably close file descriptors
> before starting. Currently they close everything upto some number
> which formally is not reliable. Other natural users are lsof(1) and CRIU
> (although lsof does so much in /proc that the effect is thoroughly buried).
>
> /proc, the only way to learn anything about file descriptors may not be
> available. There is unavoidable overhead associated with instantiating
> 3 dentries and 3 inodes and converting integers to strings and back.
>
> Benchmark:
>
> N=1<<22 times
> 4 opened descriptors (0, 1, 2, 3)
> opendir+readdir+closedir /proc/self/fd vs fdmap
>
> /proc 8.31 ą 0.37%
> fdmap 0.32 ą 0.72%
This doesn't have the semantic problem that pidmap does, but I still
wonder why this can't be accomplished by adding a new file in /proc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists